Every Strength a Weakness and Other Caveats
Morgan W. McCall, Jr.
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern California
Pre-publication draft to appear in Robert B. Kaiser (editor), The Perils of the Positives: The Rest of What you need to Know about Strengths-Based Development.
Do not cite or quote without permission of the author.
(Morgan.McCall@Marshall .USC.edu)
Every Strength a Weakness and Other Caveats
Morgan W. McCall, Jr.
Marshall School of Business
University of Southern California
Make things as simple as possible, but not simpler.
-Albert Einstein
Anyone who has ever tried to change someone else’s behavior—or for that matter, one’s own-- knows it can be a difficult proposition. Perhaps this is because “people consistently overrate their own skill, honesty, generosity, and autonomy.” Not only that, but they “overestimate their contribution to a joint effort, [and] chalk up their successes to skill and their failures to luck…” (Pinker, 2002, 265). With the forces in play, the odds of them accepting negative feedback and agreeing to change would appear to be long indeed. Add to that the findings of a recent survey that “90% of managers think they’re among the top 10% of performers in their workplace” (Coy, 2007, 44), and it is not surprising that the managers of those managers might be quick to embrace any alternative to confronting the weaknesses of their subordinates.
As if an answer to the unspoken prayer, the recent emphasis on “playing people to their strengths” (Kaiser, this volume) provides just such an escape. It is difficult to fix people, the theory goes, so it is better to focus on making more effective use of their proven strengths. It sounds simple, and may be an effective strategy for some outstanding football quarterbacks, world-class quarter milers, and champion chess masters (actually it isn’t, but more on that later). But this approach may not work as well for those in, or aspiring to, leadership roles. For them that strategy is overly simple and, as we will show, even may jeopardize their careers.
The idea that people should be played to their strengths has deep roots. I’m told that in earlier times (much earlier) it was believed in some cultures that everyone was put on this earth for a specific reason. Each of us, it was said, had a special gift, called a “genius,” and our purpose in life was to bring that gift into the world (a process sometimes aided by an obsessive “mentor” who recognized the gift and was therefore obligated to see to it that it was brought forth). Obviously there was a single-minded focus on the strength inherent in the genius, and often a whole village was committed to seeing it through.
Fast forward to more modern times when leadership was viewed in a similar way—the “genius” possessed by “great men” who shaped great events. (The word “genius” derived from the Latin meaning guardian spirit or, later, natural talent. It’s not far from there to seeing talent as “genetic.”) This notion feeds the belief that leaders are born that way, that they have unique strengths (“towering strengths” they were once called at PepsiCo) that, if not outright gifts, are natural talents that were nurtured early on. From this perspective, as with genius in earlier times, it is rational to emphasize those strengths.
The unstated but logical corollary is that skills that aren’t gifts only rarely develop into the towering strengths that come naturally, and that outright weaknesses are even less likely to do so. The best strategy, therefore, is to build on one’s strengths rather than to mess much with the other stuff. However, if leadership skills can be developed and if flaws can be corrected or mediated—in other words, if people can change—then perhaps focusing narrowly on existing strengths is not always the best strategy.
Recent progress in neuroscience and in genetics sheds some light on the issue of talent and change. From neuroscience, for example, we know that the brain itself is changed by experience (and sometimes just by observation of other people) (Gilkey & Kilts, 2007). If experience is powerful enough to change the structure of the brain, then certainly we aren’t totally constrained by the wiring we bring into the world.
Work in genetics, at least that body of work based largely on studies of twins, has looked specifically at the relationship between heredity and the number of leadership-related positions held. The results suggest that approximately 30% in the variance in leadership-related positions is attributable to heredity, while the remaining 70% is attributed to experience (Arvey et al. 2006). Some may interpret the 30% figure as evidence that leadership is largely a gift, and it is not a trivial percentage, but a larger chunk of the variance is explained by environmental factors, largely experience. To the extent that leadership strengths are related to acquisition of leadership positions, these findings suggest that many of these strengths are learned from experience and not native gifts.
Taken together, the neuroscience and genetic research seem to warrant at least two conclusions. First, in the leadership arena, even with such a crude criterion as “number of leadership positions held,” the natural gifts one brings to the party are not enough—70% is acquired some other way. Second, people can and do change in profound ways, even to the point of rewiring the brain, and therefore can develop new strengths as well as correct perceived weaknesses.
Having established that leaders are not necessarily limited by their natural strengths, we can take a closer look at the other assumptions underlying the strengths-based approach to leadership development. Four areas of research are relevant: why talented executives and managers sometimes derail; the transitions required for career success; how executives develop through experience; and the acquisition of expertise. All support the conclusion that while following one’s passion may be a good idea, relying on one’s strengths is a dubious strategy in the corporate leadership world.
Derailment of Talented Executives
Two of the assumptions underlying a strategy of playing people to their strengths are questionable in light of what we know about derailed executives. First is the assumption that a strength is a strength is a strength. The second is that weaknesses (or flaws or “developmental opportunities”) can be neglected either because people’s strengths are sufficient to offset them, or because people can avoid situations where their dark sides cause them serious trouble. Research on derailment, dating as far back as 1983 raises serious questions about these assumptions (McCall & Lombardo, 1983). If strengths aren’t always strengths—if indeed every strength can be weaknesses-- then playing to them can magnify rather than overshadow weaknesses. If situations in which weaknesses are problematic can’t be avoided, then those weaknesses, rather than strengths, could become the more important factor in determining success or failure.
There is good reason to believe that both dynamics are not only possible but are relatively common. In trying to understand why talented people sometimes derail (a derailment is said to occur when successful managers, expected to continue being successful, aren’t), we identified four dynamics that are relevant to the positivist assumptions: Strengths become weaknesses, flaws matter, arrogance takes over, and bad luck (see McCall, 1998, for a summary).
Strengths become weaknesses
Strengths that have led to success, the very ones that advocates claim should be played to, can become weaknesses over time or in a new situation. Take, for example, the co-founder and former chief executive officer of Sun Microsystems, Scott McNealy. Prior to the bursting of the technobubble, he was widely admired as the underdog maverick willing to take on Microsoft’s and IBM’s dominance. Who could ever forget the sight of Bill Gates rocking uncomfortably before Congress as McNealy made his statement? Yet, as reported in BusinessWeek (Kerstetter & Burrows, 2004), “His greatest strengths…turned out to be critical flaws. [His] high-minded resolve began to look to others like simple-minded obstinacy.” Here is a case where the very strengths that made him an heroic character eventually prevented him from making the changes that were required to keep the company successful.
Or take the case of former Boeing CEO, Phil Condit. After a brilliant career as an engineer, eventually reaching the top position, he derailed for a variety of reasons that included alleged ethical lapses. But the aspect that interests us most in this context was the observation that “the skills that made him a brilliant engineer—obsessive problem solving and an ability to envision elegant design solutions—were of less use in an executive position” (Holmes, 2003). What does it mean that his strengths “were of less use”? Perhaps it suggests that as an executive he needed different skills; that the ones that had made him successful and were in large part responsible for his promotion to the top job were no longer effective in dealing with the problems of this office. And, perhaps, the more he used those less-than-useful skills (under stress we tend to go back to what has made us successful), the more he was distracted from doing what needed to be done.
In short, both of these executives needed different strengths to stay successful as their situations changed over time. Strengths can be over-used, used when they are no longer the ones needed in the situation, or literally become flaws in situations requiring different strengths. How might things have been different had they acquired new strengths along the way rather than hanging on to, and over-using, what had made them successful in the past?
As situations change the development of new strengths (and often the letting go of old ones) may be required. People are inclined to stick with their strengths (and the more successful they are, the more likely people are to stay with doing what they know), and organizations, rational as they are, like to keep people doing what they are good at. Unfortunately development requires doing things people don’t yet know how to do, so playing people to their strengths only looks like an effective strategy until the situation changes and the old strengths no longer serve.
Flaws Matter
Ignoring, neglecting, or overlooking their people’s flaws spares managers the painful and difficult task of trying to fix them. It does not, however, spare flawed people from being derailed by their flaws. There are at least two reasons that it is foolish to ignore flaws, as difficult as they may be to change. First, every one of us has flaws. While it is true that “towering” strengths can overshadow flaws and even lead to forgiving them, the changing situations that can negate strengths can also inflame flaws. It’s hard to imagine, for example, that the board was unaware that controversial former CEO Carly Fiorina had a few flaws that could, in the H-P culture, be her undoing. But her “charisma and confidence” that promised to reform Hewlett-Packard seemingly led the decision makers to miss that her existing flaws, notably her craving for the limelight, would become salient in an engineering-oriented culture (Saporito, 2005).
The second reason it is dangerous to ignore flaws is that they frequently camouflage themselves as strengths. An autocrat who gets results may be seen as demanding or having high standards; a person incapable of making a decision might be seen as a consensus builder or excellent listener. Because flaws may also be strengths (it’s often a matter of degree), they can be difficult to self-assess and to change, but the danger here is that they may appear to be the very strengths that we are advised to play to. Reinforcing them in turn may make people less aware of the impact of their behavior while at the same time encouraging them to become more extreme.
Success Leads to Arrogance
While we all strive to be successful, success is not without its negative consequences. The confidence required to take on challenges is reinforced by meeting those challenges. All too often, however, confidence ceases to be a strength when slides into arrogance. Success after success can result in a loss of humility.
Carly Fiorina’s hubris no doubt played a part in alienating her support on the H-P board and within the company, yet its soul mate, confidence, no doubt contributed to her many achievements. While this is really just an extreme case of a strength (self-confidence) becoming a weakness (arrogance), it is a frequent dynamic among the very successful who derail. Arrogance does its dirty work when people believe their strengths are greater than they are, that their strengths will always carry them, or that they don’t need to do anything about their dark side. It’s not much of a stretch to see that for successful people emphasizing their strengths and not confronting their flaws would fertilize the growth of this disease.
Bad luck
It might appear that when bad luck leads to derailment there is no message about strengths or weaknesses: stuff happens. But when bad luck occurs, existing strengths may not be enough to resolve the situation, or untended flaws may flare up, making matters considerably worse. In other words, “bad luck” creates a new situation in which one’s perceived strengths and weaknesses play out differently.
In sum, people are complex tapestries of strengths and weaknesses, and understanding their success or derailment requires considering combinations of strengths and weaknesses in specific contexts. Strengths can the overplayed or become irrelevant; strengths in combination with certain flaws may be benign in one situation but not another; arrogance resulting from towering strengths can lead to failure. In short, there is no such thing as an unqualified strength, and any effective development strategy will have to acknowledge that what matters are combinations of strengths and weaknesses as they manifest themselves in specific situations.